My Answer to an Article on Election by P Coulson (Believers Magazine, Sept.2001)
The article begins with this sub-heading:
“Election unto salvation may offend human reasoning...”. We say election unto
salvation offends God’s reasoning also. We find no verse of Scripture quoted in
this article that justifies the view presented. Reference is made to Israel and to
certain individuals .such as Esau, and attempts are made to draw conclusions
from these. Mr Jack Hunter is quoted as teaching “individual election” but
no source reference is given that this
might be verified. I will quote one who
opposed this teaching in Assembly
Testimony, No.236, Nov/Dec 1991—H T Kimber. www.assembly testimony There are many more of course,
notable brethren, who reject the notion of “election to salvation” (read the
booklet, Election by W N Benson,
published by Gospel Tract Publications, June 1998)
H T Kimber wrote
to correct an erroneous article on Election published in Assembly Testimony,
No.227.
If anyone cannot
agree with this view of election to salvation, we are told it will be because
of “severely limited capacity to
understand the mind and ways of God.... our minds are too small...we find it
impossible to reconcile the idea of sovereign choice with the equally
scriptural doctrine of man’s individual responsibility to obey the gospel. To
human thinking these two principles are diametrically opposed and
irreconcilable.”
But if the article speaks of “sovereign
choice” then there must be deliberate rejection as well as deliberate
acceptance, or choice does not exist. These contradictions “sit in perfect
accord in the mind of God”. That is, while the “natural mind” calls black black
and white white, and straight cannot be bent, it is different with our God. To
Him straight can be bent and black can be white.
It is assumed
only Calvinists (i.e. those who hold to any
part of TULIP theology) have the mind of God (note, mind of God is not a Scriptural term). But the believer is not governed by a natural mind. The believer
is renewed in the mind (Eph.4:22). Paul says, let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil.2:5),
with the mind I myself serve the law of
God (Rom.7:25), and We have the mind
of Christ (1 Cor.2:16). God does not
expect His children to go on in a state of confusion. Our God is not guilty of
double-talk, as the B M article will have us to believe.
Another amazing
statement is brought before the reader: “If it were possible in any way for the
harmony of these two principles to be expressed in words, then surely the Holy
Spirit would have done so in the Scriptures.” This is an admission that not even the Holy Spirit can reconcile
these two views.
The next
sub-heading is “...but it is in total harmony with human responsibility.”
Mtt.11.27 is then quoted, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and
no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him”.
Despite there
being no mention, nor even an allusion, to election in this verse, we are
informed, “Such a verse makes a clear
statement (my italics) concerning the sovereign, elective will of God in
relation to individuals from among the race of men...to the unbiased mind this
is a crystal–clear declaration of individual election”.
The Lord also
said Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed
them unto babes. Mtt.11:7. The verses tell us that the child of God is
brought into divine knowledge, and this can in no way imply therefore that such
was sovereignly elected to salvation.
We ask what kind
of human responsibility is this that cannot respond to the gospel of Christ,
because of not being among the elect? The god of Calvinism commands the
repentance of all, but prevents the ability to perform it.
Another verse
quoted, and popular among Calvinists, is John 6:37. The writer quotes this,
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me: (divine election) and him that cometh to me I will in no wise
cast out (human responsibility).”
The Father gives
to the Son all those who freely repent of their sins and trust in Christ. They
shall come to Him for no power in heaven or earth or below can prevent them
coming to Him. There is no election in that. What of those who will not come?
That is their responsibility, we are told. But we are not told that because they are therefore not elect they cannot come. The writer doesn’t
tell us that according to his doctrine God’s choice is to damn them without
opportunity to repent.
The third
sub-heading is “In relation to the salvation of the soul, election is always
individual...” We are next told “The
Scriptures teach, unequivocally (my
italics), that God has chosen certain individuals to be saved.... We can boldly assert this truth as both
scriptural and unassailable.” The example is then given of Jacob and Esau,
“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But this has nothing to do with
salvation or election of course. The writer tells us these are “the inspired
words of Paul to the Romans...based upon God’s sovereign dealings recorded in
Genesis 25.23 and Exodus 33.19.” He does NOT tell his readers that Paul was
quoting Malachi 1:2,3 which was written centuries after both Jacob and Esau had
died. That is, God did not make that statement during their lifetime. In any
case, while it is true that God may deal with individuals as He pleases there
is no example in Scripture where an individual is elected, foreordained, or
predestined to do evil against his own will. It is convoluted thinking that
concludes because God deals with certain individuals according to His own will,
therefore God has elected from eternity other individuals to salvation.
It is boldly
asserted that, “The truth of individual election is emphatically taught in the
parenthetic section of the Roman epistle, chs. 9-11. Indeed, if we fail to see
that, we miss the whole point of that part of the doctrine of the gospel.” No such thing is taught of course, and the
writer doesn’t refer to any particular words to justify his statement. Maybe he
it is who doesn’t understand the gospel.
Romans 9-11,
shows us that God will have mercy on whom He will, and therefore the gospel
must go out to the Gentiles, so that whosoever among these may believe the
gospel and be saved.
This is seen in
practice in Acts 13:46-48 (quoted in the article but not commented upon). And as many as were ordained to eternal
life believed. These were Gentiles who had gladly received the word and had
glorified it). They were not foreordained
to eternal life. They were not elected
to eternal life. They were not predestined
to eternal life. God has ordained (purposed,
appointed) eternal life to be the blessing for as many as rightly respond to
the gospel of Christ. It was not to remain the prerogative of the Jew. These
Gentiles accordingly believed.
The fourth
sub-heading is, “....but there is a corporate aspect in relation to Israel’s
blessing as a nation.”
“God’s
statement, ‘Israel
is my son’ (Ex.422), shows that their election and sonship were collective....”
But we can find
no reference to this corporate, collective election of Israel
mentioned in Scripture. Rather the opposite is stated by Paul in Rom.9;6, They are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Inclusion in the blessing of the nation
will be on the grounds of personal and individual faith on the part of the Jew.
The term corporate election is one invented by
certain men to bring into derision those holding to the Scriptural doctrine of
election. Election is not to salvation, but those trusting in Christ are chosen before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without
blame before him in love. (Eph.1:4). God has chosen those who get saved to
be holy and without blame.
The closing
words are, “You and I are not elect because we are in the Church, we are in the
Church because we are the elect of God, sovereignly, gloriously, wonderfully
chosen by God to be saved by His grace! Should we not humbly and thankfully
adopt the attitude of Abraham’s servant? ‘and the man bowed down his head, and
worshipped the Lord’ (Gen 24.6)”
This is not how
Paul prayed. He wrote, I have great
heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were
accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsman according to the flesh. Rom.9:2,3.
Moses also prayed, yet now if thou wilt
forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which
thou hast written. Ex.32:32.
It is with great
dismay that we find the Believers
Magazine given over to the promotion of Calvinism.
For those not
aware what five-point (TULIP) Calvinism is, I give a summary below.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY— Man is
totally dead to God and cannot of his own will respond to the gospel.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION—God
from eternity unconditionally chose a certain few out of the human race to be
saved.
LIMITED ATONEMENT—Christ
died only for those previously elected. His propitionary sacrifice does not
reach to all men.
IRRESISTABLE GRACE—God
overpowers the will of the elect sinner, granting him faith and then repentance
to believe on Jesus Christ.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS—All
the elect will persevere in the faith and ultimately die in a state of grace.
(None can be sure they are elect until they die).
L M Vance shows
in his book The Other Side of Calvinism, that
these five points are intimately related, so it is inconsistent to reject any
one point and hold to others. But we reject them all as being contrary to the
teaching of Scripture.
I gave Mr Coulson the opportunity to
answer the objections raised by me against “Election to Salvation” before
publication. His reply is in the letters section
Dear
brother Ron,
Your self-styled ‘response’ to my
article on Election in the Believers Magazine is as misrepresentative and
malign as your 'response’ to an earlier contribution on the subject of
Propitiation. I would be grateful if you would append to your forthcoming
‘response’ a note from myself stating that I utterly refute your uncharitable
and untrue accusation that I am a ‘Calvinist’ or that I support or teach the
false ‘TULIP’ doctrine.
With
thanks,
Phil
Coulson
I am puzzled by the words “self-styled”.
My answer is Bible-styled. Col.4:6, 2 Tim.4:2. Jude 3. I do only that which is
incumbent upon all believers. Whether my answer is misrepresentative, readers
can judge for themselves. As to being malign, I seek only to establish the
truth. The tenets of Calvinism are NOT commonly held among us and must be
strongly resisted. There was no malignity intended on my part and I certainly
do not feel it. I love my brother in the Lord, and believe that he was sincere
in his articles, and sought to set forth the things that he firmly believes.
I
haven’t at any time accused Mr Coulson of being a “Calvinist” so the charges of
being uncharitable and untrue are invalid. However, readers of Believers Magazine will largely be aware
that the statements in the quoted B M articles do represent the doctrines of Calvinism.
And it would be a matter of spiritual
arrogance for me to thank God for saving me while my neighbour is damned
without hope of salvation.
